Eclipse,

Thanks for the links,

However dodgy Martin Durkin's documentary, it does not effect, one way or the other, the validity of any of the scientific theories he relied upon, anymore than errors in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" invalidate all the issues he raised. Zealous advocates of one position or another often mix together their good arguments with their bad ones. It is foolish to treat them all as bad, just because some can be shown to be flawed. I'm not saying the Cosmic Ray theory is correct, just that you can't debunk it by saying it was promoted by any particular nutcase.

Q&A,

Thanks for the links, unfortunately I couldn't get past the 'pay to see' issue so could only read http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090723141812.htm

Whilst that article indicated that recent research suggested low lying cloud (which provides a cooling effect) appears to dissapate with temperature, it also, in the introduction, concedes that "as the earth warms under increasing greenhouse gases, it is not known whether clouds will dissipate, letting in more of the Sun's heat energy and making the earth warm even faster, or whether cloud cover will increase, blocking the Sun's rays and actually slowing down global warming."

Also observed:

"What was not so encouraging, however, was the fact that most of the state-of-the-art climate models from modeling centers around the world do not reproduce this cloud behavior. Only one, the Hadley Centre model from the U.K. Met Office, was able to reproduce the observations. "We have a long way to go in getting the models right, but the Hadley Centre model results can help point us in the right direction," said co-author Burgman, a research scientist at the University of Miami.

In other words, this article, whilst indicating that the effect of warming on some types of clouds may produce a positive feedback, there is clearly great uncertainty, and the same evidence undermines confidence in most climate models.

I was also interested to see a contrary link relating to higher level clouds on the same page:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071102152636.htm

(continued)

Again, the clear impression is gained that the response of clouds to other warming factors, whether as a positive or negative feedback mechanism, are not even close to being well understood (I certainly don't understand them as these two articles reverse my earlier expressed understanding that low cloud warms and high clouds cool - apologies for the mix up).

Also, just in case you have changed your mind, my previous questions for your consideration:

1) During previous interglacials, CO2 levels declined after peaking at higher/equivalent levels than our present level? Clearly there has been some strong and sustained mechanism which has prevented runaway global warming, but my reading and wiki searching has been unable to identify any mechanism strong enough to explain why in previous ages runaway global warming did not occur. Can you shed any light on why?

2) Have read that there appears to be some 'mystery' CO2 sink based on the observation that all measured sources of CO2, less all known CO2 absorbers ought to leave us much higher C02 levels that are currently observed (MUCH higher): http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/oco/news/oco-20090123.html. Isn't this a clear indication of how poorly understood the CO2 cycle is, particularly in a quantitative sense? Surely in the face of such significant holes in our understanding the environmental movement is jumping the gun in asserting their is no room for debate anymore?

3) I have read, and others have posted, that the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas declines 'exponentially' with its concentration and that current CO2 levels already trap most of this radiation and further CO2 will have very little effect - like further coats of black paint on a window (as another poster described it). To what extent is this true?

4) Do you concede there is a real opportunity cost attached discontinuing/reducing the use of fossil fuels and shouldn't the opportunity cost be a fully investigated part of assessing 'what to do' about GW?

Has anyone thought that the increase in CO2 may be due to the increased use of Carbonated softdrinks. I've got one of those machines for making soda water (for mixing with my Scotch) & I just thought. Carbonated Softdrinks, there you go. Ban Coke & all softdrinks & problem solved. ;-)

& then I thought (when I was using the Oxy) I'm burning up Oxygen & making CO2. there you go, ban Oxy/Acetelene. More of the problem solved.

At this rate I solve the Global Warming Crisis on my own.

Surrendering oneself to a higher power or spiritualism is part of being a conscious human, so I’ll give this massive insane cult a break and say that we do come by Echotheism honestly.
The big lie with Echotheism is not a question of the existence of Earth (God), but rather its assumed demise, its health and its future. But the very fact that this god is tangible makes it simplicity enticing to a Google age culture of confused and constant hysteria at every turn in our fear based society. This religion permeates us to the core. Despite the lack of any climate crisis, we still assume that the Earth God is angry, by allowing weakness to be a new part of nature. Since when has any other culture in history ever regarded the powers of nature as weak and sensitive or “a tender and fragile balance”? At least when ancient Romans sacrificed bulls according to omens that nature gave them, they at least had the sense to fear nature, not fear FOR it. In many ways our new religion of Global Warming / Climate Change / Environ MENTALism / Ecology, call it Echotheism, is more primitive and barbaric than other ancient pagan religions because the Earth God does not give us any omens, only warnings of Armageddon.
Earth Worship has its very own Christian like elements of the holy Earth Day, the EXXON devil and the sins of greed and excess and the promise of betrayal to the tribe by allowing Armageddon. As usual, guilt, fear and the constant ignorance these factors produce play an essential role in this religion.
I believe we as a species should now step forward to the next level of civilized human beings by first eliminating fear as a motivation so we can live out our individual lives authentically and wisely by preserving our planet and accepting the challenges of progress.
The global warming theory has been predicting Armageddon for 23 years and we are now about to give our high priests of Climate tax money to please the angry Earth God.
God help us.

Mem,

Environmentalists are no more all lunatics than skeptics are all sane. The fringes of every position are almost invariably irrational.

Your melodramatic description of the environmental movement as a religion while apt for some, (and I definitely concede that group is either growing or getting louder) includes all the reasonable ones too. This has the effect of making you look unreasonable, and they more reasonable. Just like when you shout at someone for making too much noise, or smack a child for being violent.

23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years!
23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years!
23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years!
23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years!
23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years!
23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years!
23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years!
23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years!
23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years!
23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years!

Everyone join the mantra, we might find the "true enlightenment" MEME has obviously found. And MEME calls us religious, while he chants "om" and consults his navel.

Yes we all know your opinion meme, but we're trying to discuss the *science*. Go outside and suck your lollipop there... no, not in here, it will drip on the carpet. That's it, close the door now, well done.

Now, what were we saying before MeMe's tantrum?